The present invention is related to devices for deterring pets from getting on furniture and thus correcting undesired behaviors of pets.
Many domestic pets present undesirable behaviors that are related to and dependent on a particular isolated location. Some examples of this type of behavior include a dog eating the food of a cat or a pet toppling a trashcan. It is understood that restraining the pet from approaching the particular isolated location relating to the undesired behavior would eliminate the behavior. It is also understood that pets without behavior problems need not and, in some situations, cannot be restricted from the particular location of interest. One traditional solution to this issue is to restrain the pet with the undesired behavior from the particular location by positioning a fence, gate, or other physical-type boundary around the particular location. This solution is limited in that it is space consuming, decoratively unappealing, and potentially destroyable or surmountable by the pet under consideration. Additionally, this approach restricts all pets, not just the pet with an undesirable behavior, from accessing the particular location.
Another conventional solution to the issue of correcting the undesired behaviors of a pet that are relative to a specific isolated location is the implementation of an invisible restraint, which is typically referred to as an invisible fence. An example is U.S. Pat. No. 7,021,244 to Boyd. Conventional invisible restraints include an insulated conductive wire, a transmitter, and a receiver. The wire is disposed such that it defines the perimeter of the desired area of restriction and serves as an antenna for the transmitter, which emits a radio signal that produces and electromagnetic field that radiates from the wire. The receiver is worn by a pet and is responsive to the electromagnetic field such that as the equipped pet approaches the wire, the receiver detects the field and administers a deterrent to the pet, thus restraining the pet from continuing toward the restricted area.
Conventional pet correction mats also propose a solution to the issue of correcting the undesired behaviors of a pet that are relative to a specific isolated location. A pet correction mat discourages a pet from touching the mat by providing a series of sharp spikes, such as U.S. Des. 417,043 to Byrne or by administering a static stimulation to the pet when the pet contacts the mat, such as U.S. Pat. No. 4,969,418 to Jones. Therefore, when a pet correction mat is positioned at the desired area of restriction, a pet cannot access the restricted area without receiving a stimulus, such as a static spark or encountering the sharp surface, thus restraining the pet. Because a pet correction mat administers a static stimulus to anything that contacts the mat, a pet correction mat cannot distinguish between the pet with an undesired behavior and a pet that needs no discipline. Therefore, a conventional pet correction mat prevents pets without behavior problems and even humans from accessing the desired area of restriction. This condition limits the pet correction mat from being of value for situations such as the previously discussed examples of a dog eating a cat's food or a dog toppling a trashcan.